The Mazda of Mazdaism - and its relation to Pantheism

I suppose the correct thing would be to say that Ahoora is existence, and also the cause of existence. There is no reason to a Zoroastrian to divide the two. In modern physics, Existence and the Cause of Existence are one and the same thing, Existence is its own cause.
Mazda is mind, which makes Zoroastrians worship "the Mind of Existence" (or as it is often correctly translated "the supreme wisdom").
So it is correct that we do not worship Everything as a whole, rather we worship that of the whole which has mind. This makes Zoroastrianism (with its support for Constructive or Mindful Mentality against Destructive or rather Mindless Mentality) different from outright Pantheism and its cold and cynical attitude towards existence (as exemplified in Buddhism and Brahmanism).
Arthur Perarlstein and I have discussed this issue before and explained that this important difference explains precisely why we became Zoroastrians rather than Taoists or Buddhists when we chose our religious affiliation.
Ushta
Alexander

2008/7/22 Parviz Varjavand :

>>>"what the Gathas say about the Ahura (that is the Exalted, High, Great, Supreme, ra, Being/Person, ahu,) who is the personification of Spenta, Asha, Spenta, Vohu, Manah, etc; and who, according to the Gathas, is the Birther, Creator, Designer and Maker of the Cosmos, >>Ronald Delavega"<<<

Dear readers,

The first scholar to relate Ahoora to the root word AH which means EXISTANCE was Zabih Behrooz. By his definition, Ah means Existence and Ahoora simply means THAT WHICH EXISTS or THAT WHICH HAS EXISTENCE. I am a student of Behrooz and that is why I maintain that it would be a most ridiculous statement to say that Ahoora dwells outside Existence. That would be paramount to saying " That which exist, exists outside existence".

Ahoora is Existence, it is larger than Mazda. All that exists does not think, all that is Ahoora is not Mazda. Ahoora and Existence are one and Mazda occurs at the peak of the Ahooraic pyramid. This is why Mazdaism is not Monism; Mazdaism is Mazdaism.

Parviz Varjavand